Mark Rafn wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Feb 2006, Josh Triplett wrote:
>> They may require that if the work interacts with users, but the
>> interface is such that those users do not receive a copy of the
>> software, you must still satisfy the requirements of clause 6
>> ("Non-Source Distribution") as though you had distributed the work to
>> those users in the form of Object Code.
>
> My first suggestion would be to try to word a license clause you believe
> meets the requirements, THEN figure out how to word GPLv3 to be
> compatible with it. The extra layer of indirection is confusing.The extra layer may be slightly confusing, but there's a good reason to attempting to frame a "compatibility clause" in this manner. If we phrase a particular clause, that won't necessarily help us judge another such clause. If we craft a description of the type of such clauses which we find acceptable, then we have a useful gauge to use when evaluating licenses, as well as useful text for the GPLv3. > My second is that you will need to define "interacts" and "users" pretty > carefully here. I have a lot of code I wrote that doesn't interact with > users, but with other programs (say, Apache) that interact with other > programs (say, a TCP/IP stack) that interact with other programs > (routers, other tcp/ip stacks, and finally a browser program) that may > have a user. > > I believe I could reasonably claim that I am the sole user of the > software, as I caused it to be run. I agree somewhat with this issue. We may need to clarify the distinction between software which "interacts" and software which provides a "transport" for unmodified data. - Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
